KENOSHA, WI – Be Fair Kenosha announces an informational meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), 6618-39th Avenue, Kenosha, WI from 7 to 9 PM.
WLIP’s Lenny Palmer will be among speakers on the topic “Why We Oppose a Workplace Smoking Ban” presenting reasons that business owners, employees and citizens should vote “No” on the November 4th workplace smoking referendum.
Every voter interested in preserving all Kenoshans’ freedom of choice, without government interference, is asked to attend.
Be Fair Kenosha is a political action committee of concerned citizens and business owners in Kenosha who support both personal and business owner’s property rights when deciding how to live our lives and operate our businesses.
For additional information visit the web site of Be Fair Kenosha at www.votekenosha.com.
Additionally, this was a comment left at the Daily Kenoshan:
I just got an automated call from the idiots to vote “YES” on the workplace smoke ban. Of course, there is no mention about bars but that is specifically what this law is aimed at
So the Smoke Free folks are hitting hard… Imagine that! So get out there and make your voices heard, Kenosha!
Filed under: Get Active!, action alert! | Tagged: Kenosha, smoking ban
Just a thought; unless smoking bans make allowance for a fair trial, these ban laws are ‘Bills of Attainder’ and are probably unconstitutional.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”
“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
The precedent that best reflects most of the original intention of the mandates is from Cummings v. Missouri.[9] It states,
“A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.”